TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Our antiquated liquor laws
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT the Beer Store.

That's already private. It's a co-op between major brewers.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT but why should we deregulate and sell off profitable government operations? Sure, a lot of that revenue is tax...but let's not kid ourselves here, there's a shitload of profit there too. I'm fine with that going into our coffers instead of some guy's pocket.

Im not saying we should sell off liquor stores but healthy competition never hurts. look what happened when the phone monopoly was busted up! I rememeber 15 years ago we paid 75 cents a minute to call the US!! Not only that but now we have much more choice. If you are all for the government making sole profit on a product outright then maybe the government should open walmarts and ban private dept stores too!

quote:

My main disagreement with Jayx1...while I *definitely* do think that more responsibility needs to be put onto individuals, I don't feel that shifting any responsibility away from proprietors is beneficial at all.

im not saying ALL responsibilty should be taken away but definately should for people caught with fake ID. Right now the person with fake ID gets off and the club is responsible. Thats BS.

quote:

If someone is clearly wasted, they should be cut off...does the bar/club have to follow the person around and make sure their friends don't buy them a drink? no. I don't think there should be unconditional liability for proprietors, but in being licensed to serve alcohol, a drug, I don't have a problem with them being forced to serve it in a responsible manner as well. Profit motivation needs to be kept in check a little...the last thing we need are wait staff saying "aw come on, why not have one more" instead of cutting someone off

they should definately serve in a responsible manner but at the same time its up to the individual to know his limits. I dont think the host should be liable if someone drinks at their place and then goes out and drinks and drives. Thats 3rd part blame and its wrong. Unless it can be proven that that person FORCED alcohol on the driver, the driver should be the sole person responsible. If i ever ended up in a 3rd party situation like that id make the case that they would have to prove that a) the booze was mine b) all the booze was consumed on my property c) i was negligent

Try and prove that buddy didnt down a 40 after he left my place.

quote:

Originally posted by baystreetboi I for one don't hear of any stories of exceptional numbers of drunkards roaming the streets in the wee hours as a result of increased availability any more than what already occurs here.

Yes but the theory around here goes that Ontarians are less capable of behaving like adults then the rest of the world. Sadly the government here also thinks this way. I personally take it as a huge insult.

You should start your own country.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 alberta prices are cheaper?

Alberta prices arent much cheaper. maybe a few(max 5%) percent, but its the LPST that adds extra cost out here.

quote:

Originally posted by j_spot Alberta prices arent much cheaper. maybe a few(max 5%) percent, but its the LPST that adds extra cost out here.

However you can get way more selection on brands in Alberta.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 However you can get way more selection on brands in Alberta.

yes, for that and the fact that liquor stores can stay open until 2 am(when last call is) I think liqour should be deregulated.

the govt can still have their hand in the pot, and if they provide the service better than private industry it will be fine.
but we all know that the govt stores will fail, while private ones excel.

I WANT MY RED SQUARED RELOADED!
(vodka cola drink that tastes like vodka redbull)
I contacted LCBO about ordering a case. They said since I found it in alberta, they wont have to import from the UK, but the price for once case(24) was so high I didnt even reply to it.

quote:

Originally posted by j_spot but we all know that the govt stores will fail, while private ones excel.

Well then let them fail. If they fail they shouldnt be open in the first place.

I say bring on the competition. The only people who win are the consumers.


If competition came into affect id still go to the LCBO when i wanted expert knowledge on wine etc. But id go to the corner store for beer.

and you wouldnt have to go to separate stores to get your beer and spirits(that is the most retarded system ever)

i think we should make this an election issue...

Time to repeal our liquor laws

Re: Our antiquated liquor laws

Good post.

I pretty much agree with everything you said except this:

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Id also allow private companies to import whatever brand was in demand as long as proper duty was paid. Right now we have the government of Ontario deciding which brands can and cannot be sold. Pretty communist if you ask me.

The LCBO has an extensive and rigorous testing process that they put all the liquor through. It makes me feel alot better to know that I am getting nothing but the highest quality ingredients out there, even if I am paying a little more. There is some pretty cheap shit liquor out there. If the suppliers were allowed to sell anything, I think that the quality of the alcohol would diminish.

There should always be some sort of standard set in terms of quality.

I'm kind of puzzled...people in favour of deregulation say that there will be more selection...but people in favour of the status quo use the same line too.

Pointing to another province's selection doesn't answer that question as there could be other factors.

The logic proponents of the status quo use is that private store owners will stock what sells...they won't care about having a wide selection. Currently, most LCBO stores of the same size essentially stock the same stuff...so I know that no matter what LCBO I walk into, I'll generally find what I'm looking for, no matter how "popular" it is.

So what ensures that there will be better, or even the same, selection if we introduce competition?

I've heard this argument not just from LCBO people, but from producers too (sorry, this was a while ago, I have no specific source and am working from memory!)

the way it works in alberta is that there are the corner liquor stores which carry all the regular stuff. They seem to have Low stock levels, but high selection. then theres the big stores, which are often the specialty stores. they have everythign. EVERYTHING. and have high stock levels.

Agree with everything you said Jay.
I find the last-call thing over here (and in Ireland/England) annoying. The amount of people in the streets at 2-3 AM fighting, being sick, or just being generally annoying is a pain in the ass.
This is one of the major reasons i love going to continental europe, mainly because
a) the drinking age is much lower (or non-existent like in Belgium, yay! )
b) there is no such thing as "last call" so you can drink the whole night, moderately, without having to buy 10 drinks right before the bar closes so you can keep your buzz, and end up being completely hammered (or having to protect your drinks from being stolen) and
c) you can buy your alcohol _anywhere_. Go to the supermarket, it's there. No special license liquor stores, i hate that! It's so much nicer to just go to your local supermarket and be able to buy beer in the same place you buy your groceries

Good

Why doesn't the subway run after 2am of the weekend? The worst is living outside of central and having to take the bus.

Yes and liquor laws are a joke. Europe and elsewhere is great because you can buy alcohol from a local store. You can go visit scenic spots withliquor in hand. No hassle and no one thinks you're some loser wino who's going to get violent.

My father was telling me that back in the sixties last call was at 12am or 1am.
How far we've come!

Have you seen the wine selection at the grocery store? THEY SUCK!

Re: Re: Our antiquated liquor laws

quote:

Originally posted by Eklipse The LCBO has an extensive and rigorous testing process that they put all the liquor through. It makes me feel alot better to know that I am getting nothing but the highest quality ingredients out there, even if I am paying a little more. There is some pretty cheap shit liquor out there. If the suppliers were allowed to sell anything, I think that the quality of the alcohol would diminish. There should always be some sort of standard set in terms of quality.

lcbo favorize all the canadian brands.... its a protectionism thing, not a quality thing...

Re: Our antiquated liquor laws

i more or less agree with everything you said, here is something i want to add tho:

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 - lower the age to 18. How can we justify allowing people to vote, drive, and go to war but not allow them to have a beer and a smoke? Pretty stupid in my opinion

I agree, i even think you should lower it lower. Perhaps have 18 or 19 or 20 for buying liquor in stores, but 15 or 16 if you buy it in a bar or so. Young people would have the (legal) possiblity to drink under controlled forms... but still have to wait some time before they can buy it in stores and get total responsiblity for themself... face it, 15 year olds drink, let them do it under controlled forms

quote:

- allow for private sale of liquor. I wouldnt sell off government liquor stores but id definately allow for some competition. Id also allow private companies to import whatever brand was in demand as long as proper duty was paid. Right now we have the government of Ontario deciding which brands can and cannot be sold. Pretty communist if you ask me.

I think if the guvernemtn want to have monopoly, they should at least import everything that people demand.

this is how it works in sweden (which is also a nazi controlled country, not quite as bad as canada tho ). The "Systembolaget" have monoply on everything that has alcohol percentage of 3.5% or more. Since sweden is a EU member tho, it is illegal to have a government monoply unless they can defend it for special reasons... and they have done so far by calling it special health reasons or something like that... anyway, to my point to be allowed to have monoploy, the "systembolaget" (the swedish lcbo) must import everything that someone demands. I think they also have to stock everything that a distributur gives them. So if i go into a store and ask for something they doesnt have, they have to order it for me. This have actually created a really good liquor store, with everything from the whole world few stores offer such variety as "systembolaget". So i think if ontario want to keep the monoply, they should at least do something similar, to keep the variety.

quote:

- lower the blood alcohol limit to .05 . Why? because .08 is too much and you should not really be driving at all if you had anything. Having said that, public transportation in places like Toronto should be stepped up on weekend nights so that there are alternatives to get around.

i actually think it should be 0, in that way there is never any doubt if you can drive or not.

quote:

- shift the onus onto the individual instead of the establishment if found in a club underage. Underagers know they shouldnt be there and if they lied/scammed/or fake ID'd their way into a club it isnt nec the club's fault. However it's ALWAYS the fault of the underager because they know better. Id put more money into undercover policing for underage drinkers and the drinkers or parents (since they are minors)would be charged, not the club. Lets put responsibilty back where it belongs. ON THE PERPETRATOR

well i think this is a general problem with north america, too little personal responislbity

Re: Re: Our antiquated liquor laws

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew I think if the guvernemtn want to have monopoly, they should at least import everything that people demand. this is how it works in sweden (which is also a nazi controlled country, not quite as bad as canada tho ). The "Systembolaget" have monoply on everything that has alcohol percentage of 3.5% or more. Since sweden is a EU member tho, it is illegal to have a government monoply unless they can defend it for special reasons... and they have done so far by calling it special health reasons or something like that... anyway, to my point to be allowed to have monoploy, the "systembolaget" (the swedish lcbo) must import everything that someone demands. I think they also have to stock everything that a distributur gives them. So if i go into a store and ask for something they doesnt have, they have to order it for me. This have actually created a really good liquor store, with everything from the whole world few stores offer such variety as "systembolaget". So i think if ontario want to keep the monoply, they should at least do something similar, to keep the variety.

I like that system... I wish Canada had more of the good Belgian beers here... all they have are the mediocre ones... bah

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT Pointing to another province's selection doesn't answer that question as there could be other factors. The logic proponents of the status quo use is that private store owners will stock what sells...they won't care about having a wide selection. Currently, most LCBO stores of the same size essentially stock the same stuff...so I know that no matter what LCBO I walk into, I'll generally find what I'm looking for, no matter how "popular" it is. So what ensures that there will be better, or even the same, selection if we introduce competition? I've heard this argument not just from LCBO people, but from producers too (sorry, this was a while ago, I have no specific source and am working from memory!)

Under a privitized system, if I'm willing to pay a high enough price, a private distributor should be more than willing to import whatever brand I choose. I don't have to essentially beg or plead my case before a crown corporation as to why they should carry what I want.

As for a previous comment about the LBCO adding to quality control, great. If you want to pay a premium for a good / service provider you know will provide a quality product, continue to use the services of the LCBO. If all you want is a cheap mickey of vodka at a minimal cost regardless of quality, do you really need to be subsidizing the inflated wages of the connoisseurs at the LCBO?

LCBO will get whatever you want, but the costs are ASTRONOMICAL

let's not forget that profit motivation is an issue.

The is pretty much ZERO motivation for LCBO employees to serve anyone who is underage or drunk.

A private store owner has plenty of motivation to ignore the age restirction...it's called profit. It happens *all the time* right now with cigarettes that get sold to kids.

I'm not saying that's reason enough to not consider competition...but it's something to consider.

Again, is there any statistical proof that selling to underaged people happens to a larger extent in Alberta or Quebec than it occurs in Ontario?

The issue can be dealt with pretty easily as well. Private stores would have to be licensed by the AGCO just like bars / clubs (obviously another catagory of license would have to be created). You get caught selling to someone underage, you lose the license.

It's not like the profit motive doesn't similarly exist for bars / clubs to let underage individuals in. They are private establishments yet we have no problem letting them operate. Why should a private store be any different?

probably not...I'm guessing that store owners don't keep track of the # of underage and drunk customers they serve...and I doubt those customers would spill the beans either

sarcarsm aside, lol, I've personally witnessed illegal cigarette sales many times...why would it necessarily be any different with alcohol?

quote:

Originally posted by tha_broad here here!

beer beer!

cheer cheer!~

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT probably not...I'm guessing that store owners don't keep track of the # of underage and drunk customers they serve...and I doubt those customers would spill the beans either sarcarsm aside, lol, I've personally witnessed illegal cigarette sales many times...why would it necessarily be any different with alcohol?

The difference being, you don't have to be licensed to sell cigarettes. You get caught... you pay a fine, and keep on selling.

Under a licensing system, you risk losing the ability to sell alcohol and all profits you derive from that if you get caught. Now all of a sudden the stakes are a lot higher when you risk selling to a minor.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.